A film about urban sprawl and peak oil might seem a bit off topic for a business ethics and corporate social responsibility blog, but if you see the connection and/or have an interest in either subject, I highly recommend you check out a fantastic documentary, The End of Suburbia.

If you need some help finding the bridge between this blog and the focus of the film, look no further than the endless forced expansion of the consumer’s appetite for more consumption (homes, cars, clothes, decorations, kitchen gadgets, high-tech gadgets, and so much more) by companies in the pursuit of increasing shareholder return. What’s a homebuilder to do when money is pouring in and competitors are continuing to put up ostentatious and resource-binging skyscraper homes (a.k.a. “McMansions”) at a frantic rate 100 miles out from city centers and lining up 0% down ARMs for the self-delusional nouveau-rich (a.k.a. the negative net-worth and heavily debt-laden soon-to-be or currently former middle class), even if they know deep inside that their business plan is not sustainable long-term (say, when the right crop of inflation and credit turmoil pops up…)? Build more houses of course!

Why not? they ask. Their competitor over at ABC CrazyBig Homes is churning them out like cans of tasty and completely nutritious meat on an assembly line earning a fat bonus each period, and watching their company’s stock price skyrocket. Who cares if the system comes crumbling down later as long as I get mine, they rationalize.

In the off chance that you are not paying attention to what is happening in the US right now, and increasingly around the world, the party is over folks. For those of you who have little adjustment to make when living standards and life styles see a reversion to the mean similar to what is likely to happen in the US housing market, I commend you. For those of you who face a much larger delta, I’d get started on making some adjustments right now.

Even if you are not slightly interested, I say bite the bullet and watch it anyway. Here’s an overview of the film to whet your appetite:

“Since World War II North Americans have invested much of their newfound wealth in suburbia. It has promised a sense of space, affordability, family life and upward mobility. As the population of suburban sprawl has exploded in the past 50 years, so too has the suburban way of life become embedded in the American consciousness.

“Suburbia, and all it promises, has become the American Dream.

“But as we enter the 21st century, serious questions are beginning to emerge about the sustainability of this way of life. With brutal honesty and a touch of irony, The End of Suburbia explores the American Way of Life and its prospects as the planet approaches a critical era, as global demand for fossil fuels begins to outstrip supply. World Oil Peak and the inevitable decline of fossil fuels are upon us now, some scientists and policy makers argue in this documentary.

“The consequences of inaction in the face of this global crisis are enormous. What does Oil Peak mean for North America? As energy prices skyrocket in the coming years, how will the populations of suburbia react to the collapse of their dream? Are today’s suburbs destined to become the slums of tomorrow? And what can be done NOW, individually and collectively, to avoid The End of Suburbia?“

Rather unpleasant news today regarding the Justice Department and corporate accountability: In Justice Shift, Corporate Deals Replace Trials

Here’s a clip:

“In a major shift of policy, the Justice Department, once known for taking down giant corporations, including the accounting firm Arthur Andersen, has put off prosecuting more than 50 companies suspected of wrongdoing over the last three years.

“Instead, many companies, from boutique outfits to immense corporations like American Express, have avoided the cost and stigma of defending themselves against criminal charges with a so-called deferred prosecution agreement, which allows the government to collect fines and appoint an outside monitor to impose internal reforms without going through a trial. In many cases, the name of the monitor and the details of the agreement are kept secret.”

I am sure there is a slight possibility that this less public and less invasive method of evaluating potentially fraudulent or otherwise criminal activity by corporations, and the subsequent nearly invisible and prone-to-abuse-and-self-dealing mechanism for monitoring them thereafter, might actually prove successful in holding them accountable…

Um, NO.

Be sure to read the full article. The following is just a whiff of how meaningless this approach really is:

“Firms have readily agreed to the deferred prosecutions, said Vikramaditya S. Khanna, a law professor at the University of Michigan who has studied their use, because ‘clearly it avoids a bigger headache for them.’

“Some lawyers suggest that companies may be willing to take more risks because they know that, if they are caught, the chances of getting a deferred prosecution are good. ‘Some companies may bear the risk’ of legally questionable business practices if they believe they can cut a deal to defer their prosecution indefinitely, Mr. Khanna said.

“Legal experts say the tactic may have sent the wrong signal to corporations — the promise, in effect, of a get-out-of-jail-free card.”

TAGS: CSR | Social Responsibility | Monsanto | Ethics | Fraud | Justice Department

Mosey on over to the New York Times today and check out Gardiner Harris’ article about cigarettes, cancer, cancer studies, donated research funds, foundations, and a whole mess of vested interest and rotten bologna (smoked, rotten bologna, that is): Cigarette Company Paid for Lung Cancer Study.

Better than the article, perhaps, is the one sentence overview of th article that appeared on the front page of the New York Times:

“The revelation that a researcher’s study was underwritten by a tobacco company has caused an appearance of bias.”

You think? Really? How could a study about lung cancer, receiving funding from a massive cigarette company, possibly have any bias? Deeper into the article, Dr. Jerome Kassirer sums up the issue nicely:

“Dr. Jerome Kassirer, a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine and the author of a book about conflicts of interest, said he believed that Weill Cornell had created the foundation to hide its receipt of money from a cigarette company. ‘You have to ask yourself the question, “Why did the tobacco company want to support her research?” ‘Dr. Kassirer said. ‘They want to show that lung cancer is not so bad as everybody thinks because screening can save people; and that’s outrageous.’”

The latter part feels like a bit of conjecture, though I do not disagree in the slightest. Further down, Harris notes:

“Corporate financing can have subtle effects on research and lead to unconscious bias. Studies have shown that sponsored research tends to reach conclusions that favor the sponsor, which is why disclosure is encouraged. The tobacco industry has a long history of underwriting research — sometimes through independent-sounding foundations — to make cigarettes seem less dangerous.” (emphasis mine)

Interesting stuff.

A colleague of mine, the ever-generous and thoughtful Steve Poftak, forwarded a few “crappy food” alternative resources to me this morning. The first, a very interesting farm that delivers produce to specific pick-up stations in the Boston-area, would certainly offer a solution to my can’t-get-out-of-the-city-to-get-good-produce conundrum. The second, an editorial in the New York Times from yesterday by Michael Pollan, has some very timely tidbits, which certainly compliment the content of his book (I include a few meaty clips below). And the third is another Pollan article, yet again in the New York Times, and also worthy of a read.

Here are a few clips from Pollan’s editorial in yesterday’s New York Times:

“Americans have begun to ask why the farm bill is subsidizing high-fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils at a time when rates of diabetes and obesity among children are soaring, or why the farm bill is underwriting factory farming (with subsidized grain) when feedlot wastes are polluting the countryside and, all too often, the meat supply. For the first time, the public health community has raised its voice in support of overturning farm policies that subsidize precisely the wrong kind of calories (added fat and added sugar), helping to make Twinkies cheaper than carrots and Coca-Cola competitive with water. Also for the first time, the international development community has weighed in on the debate, arguing that subsidized American exports are hobbling cotton farmers in Nigeria and corn farmers in Mexico.

“…We would not need all these nutrition programs if the commodity title didn’t do such a good job making junk food and fast food so ubiquitous and cheap. Food stamps are crucial, surely, but they will be spent on processed rather than real food as long as the commodity title makes calories of fat and sugar the best deal in the supermarket. We would not need all these conservation programs if the commodity title, by paying farmers by the bushel, didn’t encourage them to maximize production with agrochemicals and plant their farms with just one crop fence row to fence row.

“And the government would not need to pay feedlots to clean up the water or upgrade their manure pits if subsidized grain didn’t make rearing animals on feedlots more economical than keeping them on farms. Why does the farm bill pay feedlots to install waste treatment systems rather than simply pay ranchers to keep their animals on grass, where the soil would be only too happy to treat their waste at no cost?”

Good stuff, manure processing and all.

TAGS: sustainable | organic | agriculture | consumption | consumer | supermarket | food

As a fair warning, if you do not want to question your eating, food purchasing, and general consumption habits in any way, I would stop reading this post. On the upside, I am in the middle of my research, so this post will be more or less half-baked…

Let’s start with a few resources to check out, in a reasonable order of review:

1. Beef Sold At Sam’s Club Being Recalled — the brief beef article that set me off this morning
2. Cargill Meat Solutions recalls ground beef — the most recent press release (as of this morning) listed on Cargill’s website (note that this release does not pertain to the preceding article, and indeed, the relevant release has yet to be issued — it is, however, related to a relevant but earlier recall)
3. For an added dose of fun, check out Cargill’s In the News page, which contains, “A selection of headlines from sources featuring Cargill and its businesses.” Interestingly, only one article appears this afternoon, trumpeting the work ethic of Cargill’s CEO.
4. Hmmmm…that’s funny, because I found a ton of articles in the news about Cargill running a Google News search (saved in the linked PDF to preserve the list that appeared at the actual time of my search), and somehow managed to miss the ‘work ethic’ article among the slew of beef-quality articles (maybe I’m blind, but here articles 1-10 in the “Cargill” search results: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 — nope, no mention of “work ethic”).



5. Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma — My wife bought me The Omnivore’s Dilemma for my recent birthday, and I have been dying to complete it the past week or so. I was hooked a few pages in, but seem to only find time quite late in the evening to hunker down and flip the pages (unfortunately, I have also discovered that I am not as young as I used to be — no more all-night reading binges for me). That said, the book (so far) is fantastic. It is very well written, well-researched, and captivating to boot. I have always been a bit put off by our system of consumption as it pertains to the treatment of animals (if you have the stomach for it, I would suggest you review this post) but until recently I think I was fairly naive to the full extent that agricultural policies and economics ultimately impact the health and welfare of say a cow, chicken, or ultimately, my children. Pollan has certainly done his part to open my eyes a bit — who knew that bag of organic lettuce was so dangerous?…
6. Supermarket Secrets - Dispatches (part one, and part two) — I watched both segments last night and found them to compliment all of the above quite nicely. Of note, the segments pertain primarily to British agricultural/supermarket issues (with a brief digression to Spain). That said, barring a few variances in regulations between the US and Great Britain, it is fairly safe to assume that one would find similar environments behind the cheap food in US supermarkets (as well as those of most any industrialized nation).

If your head isn’t spinning with a mix of disgust and disillusionment by the time you make it through all of the above resources, I would be very interested in hearing why not.

To be honest, I am struggling with what to make of all of this data and what possible solutions there are to mitigate the negative impact of mass consumption through my own purchasing and consumption habits. Barring a purchasing partnership with a slew of sustainable (note that I did not say “organic” — Pollan’s book has a lot to do with that) farms and the elimination of pleasantries that support companies such as Cargill (hmmm, no more corn syrup, corn-fed livestock, or even most soy-based products…), I am more or less at a loss. Moreover, given where I live (smack in the middle of Boston) purchasing food from sustainable farmers (funny, I haven’t seen any set up a stand in the city anytime recently) is a bit of a hassle. It seems that I can either drive out to the county (spewing exhaust into the environment), take public transportation (more or less producing the same pollutants), or find some way to have it shipped to me (again, with the same relative impact to the environment). Regardless, none of the solutions seem ideal.

In short, I am in that mid-perturbed stage where I do not have many answers but plenty of fodder for cynicism. I’ll do my best to transition to solutions as soon as possible an will be sure to post any that I come up with.

TAGS: Cargill | sustainable | organic | agriculture | consumption | consumer | supermarket | food | animal rights | PETA

The Springfield Business Journal has an interesting opinion piece about cheating that is worth a peek. Titled, “Cheating in Business Starts in Classrooms,” the op-ed attempts to address the question of whether “business ethics education is succeeding.” Take the time to read it through and then ask yourself the following questions:

1. What role do organized sports have in teaching ethics?
2. What about parents — do they have a role to play in teaching their children about ethics and accordingly holding them accountable?

While I think the author makes some great points, I think it is a mistake to not mention the role parents must play in guiding their children through the ethical framework process. In a similar manner, I have noticed that individuals that choose to cheat in sports will typically cheat off the field as well. Athletes unwilling to compromise their integrity by cheating in a game are far less likely to cheat in life and business. The opposite is likely the case for their teammates whom are willing to cut a few corners.

If during their most impressionable years kids are bombarded with substandard role models at home, and certainly in professional sports, how can we expect them to suddenly become pillars of ethical conviction when they enter business school? Indeed, “it is difficult to teach someone to be ethical,” especially when you are attempting to do so after years of contrary instruction and guidance.

TAGS: ethics | cheating | role model | conviction | integrity | honesty | business school

I was browsing through the news this morning and noticed a somewhat catchy article title: If Good Ethics is Good Business, What’s the Problem? …nothing groundbreaking implied, but still an interesting topic in my book. So I clicked through and started to read. Just two sentences deep, and I was already questioning my decision — did the author just imply that Fortune 500 companies and tanning salons as having similar ethical issues? (Evidently, they do, but it was still a rather odd correlation to hear without having expected it.)

Despite my misgivings, I continued to read, and am very glad that I did. The article, written  by Frank C. Bucaro for a magazine called Looking Fit, is actually a very good overview of why business ethics are important for companies of all sizes, not just the massive ones. Bucaro touches on ethical dilemmas, code of ethics, maintaining proper ethics trainings, and promoting ethical behavior by acknowledging and praising it when it occurs. Again, nothing groundbreaking, but well thought out and well put. If you have a minute or two, and can read while in your tanning booth, I recommend checking it out.

While perusing our site stats I discovered a site with an excellent collection of links (Credo is listed under Corporate Responsibility). Pablo Halkyard (I assume, based on the title of the page that he is the site owner) has amassed links of blogs and sites covering, “international development, social enterprise, Africa, cause marketing, technology for development, microfinance, philanthropy, healthcare, the environment and corporate responsibility.” Be sure to check the list out when you have a moment.

I had the distinct pleasure of grabbing a cup of coffee with Mark Rowe of Hoffman Rowe this evening. (The coffee was Organic Guatemalan, if you are wondering, though I haven’t a clue whether it was Fair Trade Certified.) We chatted for quite a while, bounced a few ideas around, and shared our views of where we think corporate social responsibility currently sits and where it is headed.

Of note, Mark floated the observation that “corporate social responsibility” is a bit off and that “corporate responsibility” is less limiting. An interesting viewpoint indeed, and I look forward to talking with him further about the pros and cons of each.

If you haven’t heard of Hoffman Rowe before, be sure to visit their website. The firm is based in the Boston-area and offers a full slate of ethics and compliance consulting services.

TAGS: CSR | Corporate Social Responsibility | Ethics | Consulting | CR

I was in Washington D.C. for a few days with my wife and son and saw a bit of CSR in action. No, it didn’t crop up during on of the mid-June sunny jaunts with my son to the Mall or one of the many museums around its perimeter. I found it in the bathroom of our hotel…

If you have stayed in a hotel in the last five or so years, you are likely to have seen the same sign hanging in your room’s bathroom or shower. It typically reads something like:

“Hotel X is concerned about the environment. Every time we wash a towel, a lot of water and detergent is used and poured down the drain into the environment. To help out, please re-use your towel more than once. Please leave a towel you would like washed on the floor and any you intend to re-use on the rack.”

Simple and easy. The likely reduction in towel usage does indeed cut down in water, electricity and detergent usage (rather, the resulting detergent run-off). But it also does something else — it saves the hotel money.

Fancy that. …a business case for CSR…

Every towel that a guest re-uses is one less towel that the hotel has to spend money and resources cleaning. Yes, the information cards hanging in the bathroom cost money and used up resources (I have yet to see one that has been printed on recycled paper, or labeled as such), but probably far less than the resources they save by prompting guests to be laundry thrifty.

Kudos to the hotels that have been implementing CSR in such a manner, and to those looking to extend the “save the towels” campaign to other areas of their operations.

(If the hotel chain is of interest, it was one of the several Embassy Suites properties in the city. The Westin that we spent the latter half of our trip in did not have a similar sign.)

TAGS: CSR | business | social responsibility | environment | Hilton | Embassy Suites